Karpel Tunnel wrote: Well, you can always comfort yourself with the knowledge that if it happens, you don't know if it's a good thing or not.

Actually, my argument revolves more around the conjecture -- just an assumption really -- that in a No God world there does not appear to be way in which, using the tools of philosophy, ethicists and/or political scientists are able to establish that fascism is -- is necessarily -- an irrational and immoral form of governing.

In other words, fascism may well in fact be either good or bad.

But how on earth would a mere mortal in a No God world go about demonstrating that?

Given the manner in which I ascribe value judgments here to the existential embodiment of dasein, conflicting goods and political economy?

Also, one might take comfort here in the knowledge that in a wholly determined universe, anything and everything is only as it ever could have been. It is what it is. Period. Not that you could ever actually have not taken comfort in it.

Karpel Tunnel wrote: For me my simply not wanting it to is enough to dread that it would happen.

On the other hand, if you were down in my hole, you'd recognize that your not wanting it is no less an existential contraption. Had your life being very, very different you might easily have been predisposed instead to want it. And, not wanting it is not the same thing as demonstrating that all other rational men and women are obligated not to want it either.

It is precisely this sort of precarious uncertainty and ambiguity about these things -- about "I" in the is/ought world -- that the objectivists are able to jettison by simply believing that how they view these things reflects who they really are in sync with the way things ought to be.

Believe me, I once nestled luxuriously in this frame of mind myself.

Karpel Tunnel wrote: But you want to know how one can live objectively correct. And unless someone here demonstrates how one does this before he takes over, you won't be sure it's a bad thing.

Before one learns how to live objectively one needs to be convinced that one can.

Karpel Tunnel wrote: And those who say it is will just be objectivists.

Just to be clear, my own understanding of objectivism does not revolve around what others profess to believe is right or wrong but that they profess to believe this can be embodied by mere mortals in a No God world. That, in other words, particular individuals can in fact be in sync with the most rational way in which to resolve conflicting goods.

And, thus, historically, the invention of that rather ubiquitous "one of us" vs. "one of them" mentality.

Look, I often react to the Trump administration with as much outrage as Peter Kropotkin.

It's just that unlike him I recognize that my own reactions ["here and now" as opposed to "there and then"] are largely existential contraptions revolving around a particular set of political prejudices rooted in the manner in which my life has actually evolved existentially.

But even here I have no way in which to convince myself that this is actually true.

It just more or less seems true to "me" "here and now".

He was like a man who wanted to change all; and could not; so burned with his impotence; and had only me, an infinitely small microcosm to convert or detest. John Fowles

Back in the Sixties [where I'm from] no one on the left ever really doubted it. Still, most called it "friendly fascism". Though they predicted it was literally right around the corner.

Nope. Didn't happen. At least for most of us.

Now though?

Well, a big enough chunk of the white working class certainly seems to be embracing the part that they are required to play.

Even got a few of them here I suspect.

What a fucking time for me to be down in that hole!

I'm starting to think that you kind of like your hole. Perhaps a bit too much.

(Reality isn't so kind. Everything doesn't work out the way you want it to. That's why...) As long as you don’t get your hopes up, you can take anything... You feel less pain.

(Right and wrong are not what separate us and our enemies. It's our different standpoints, our perspectives that separate us. Both sides blame one another. There's no good or bad side. Just two sides holding different views.)

What do you think? To tell you the truth... I worry too much about what others think of me. I hate that side of me... That's why I didn't want anyone to get to know me. I wanted to hide that side of myself. I hate it.

Back in the Sixties [where I'm from] no one on the left ever really doubted it. Still, most called it "friendly fascism". Though they predicted it was literally right around the corner.

Nope. Didn't happen. At least for most of us.

Now though?

Well, a big enough chunk of the white working class certainly seems to be embracing the part that they are required to play.

Even got a few of them here I suspect.

What a fucking time for me to be down in that hole!

The one dimensional man (Herbert Marcus) predicted a geometry of it, Nixon warned of it upon his Watergate dissolution, the ideological vacuum of the fall of communism .in us the democratic morass , left only 1 viable ground. The handwriting was on the wall, all along.

iambiguous wrote:Actually, my argument revolves more around the conjecture -- just an assumption really -- that in a No God world there does not appear to be way in which, using the tools of philosophy, ethicists and/or political scientists are able to establish that fascism is -- is necessarily -- an irrational and immoral form of governing.

Precisely what I said though I said it in a less fancy way.

In other words, fascism may well in fact be either good or bad.

Or neither. But in any case, precisely what I was saying in my post above. You just (f***ing) explained to me exactly what I said to you, as if I said something else.

IOW if Trump becomes a dictator, you can console yourself with the fact that you really don't know if it is a bad thing or not.

This does not work for me, since I don't care what the objective good or bad might be, I simply wouldn't like that if it happened.

Also, one might take comfort here in the knowledge that in a wholly determined universe, anything and everything is only as it ever could have been. It is what it is. Period. Not that you could ever actually have not taken comfort in it.

You being you and not me. But yes, that is another way you, Iambiguous, can console yourself. Not that I believe in free will. But you are talking about you here, and certainly not me or the general 'you'.

Karpel Tunnel wrote: For me my simply not wanting it to is enough to dread that it would happen.

On the other hand, if you were down in my hole, you'd recognize that your not wanting it is no less an existential contraption.Had your life being very, very different you might easily have been predisposed instead to want it. And, not wanting it is not the same thing as demonstrating that all other rational men and women are obligated not to want it either.

Well, golly gosh. As said, I really do understand this, as I have said before. However, I would not like what you are calling a fascist takeover, my dislike being a existential contraption or not, does not matter, given my experience. I would find it unpleasant, precisely as I said, and contradicting nothing you have said here. Had my life been completely different is irrelevant to my feelings now, having had the life I had. So, I cannot be consoled by this non-existent past of mine. You however can be consoled since you focus on the epistemological issue and yearn for an objectivist position.

It is precisely this sort of precarious uncertainty and ambiguity about these things -- about "I" in the is/ought world -- that the objectivists are able to jettison by simply believing that how they view these things reflects who they really are in sync with the way things ought to be.

Totally irrelevent. I am not an objectivist. However I do have preferences. Nothing you say here contradicts what I wrote.

Believe me, I once nestled luxuriously in this frame of mind myself.

Duh. You've never had my frame of mind. You used to be an objectivist. Now you are a nihilist thinking that it would be comforting to be an objectivist, who seeks to be convinced, if possible, that some form objectivism is true and this can be demonstrated. I am a non-objectivist who has no interest in that.

Karpel Tunnel wrote: But you want to know how one can live objectively correct. And unless someone here demonstrates how one does this before he takes over, you won't be sure it's a bad thing.

Before one learns how to live objectively one needs to be convinced that one can.

Sure.

Karpel Tunnel wrote: And those who say it is will just be objectivists.

Just to be clear, my own understanding of objectivism does not revolve around what others profess to believe is right or wrong but that they profess to believe this can be embodied by mere mortals in a No God world. That, in other words, particular individuals can in fact be in sync with the most rational way in which to resolve conflicting goods.

And, thus, historically, the invention of that rather ubiquitous "one of us" vs. "one of them" mentality.

Look, I often react to the Trump administration with as much outrage as Peter Kropotkin.

It's just that unlike him I recognize that my own reactions ["here and now" as opposed to "there and then"] are largely existential contraptions revolving around a particular set of political prejudices rooted in the manner in which my life has actually evolved existentially.

[/quote]Yeah. I OBVIOUSLY understood all that. In fact that is basically what I said in my post about you. You can console yourself with the fact that if Trump takes over completely, for all you know this is good.

For a nihilist like me, this is not consolation. I wouldn't like it, period. Not because I know it would be bad. But simply because I wouldn't like it. Whether this is an existential contraption or not matters little.

So let me sum up for you: I understand the is/ought distinction.I understand that you believe even your preferences are culturally, etc., constructed.

I used these facts about you as the basis for my response to your lefty respond to that blog article about Trump and coming fascism. And everything you 'instructed' me about in response, was actually just confirmed what was explicit and implict in my post.

Maybe one day you'll be able to learn that you do not need to repeat this stuff to me.

Could you please read my posts in the future, just try it out, on the assumption that I understand your position. I agree with you on one thread and get a correction where you confirm I agreed with you without realizing it. Here you correct me by saying what I said.

iambiguous wrote: In other words, fascism may well in fact be either good or bad.

Or neither. But in any case, precisely what I was saying in my post above. You just (f***ing) explained to me exactly what I said to you, as if I said something else.

Either/neither. My point is always to make the distinction between those who insist that, using the tools of philosophy, this can be actually be resolved and those who suggest instead that they may well never be. Resolved such that all rational/virtuous men and women are obligated to say that it in fact is or that it in fact is not a good thing.

But, to the extent that we both accept this, we would need to explore the manner in which we have come to this conclusion given the components of our respective philosophies. And, in turn, the extent to which we construe our conclusions "here and now" as just "existential contraptions" ever and always subject to change given new experiences, relationships and sources of information.

Karpel Tunnel wrote: IOW if Trump becomes a dictator, you can console yourself with the fact that you really don't know if it is a bad thing or not.

It doesn't work that way of course. There is no way that I can just "click off" all that went into creating the particular political "I" that I have come to embody over many, many years. All I can do is to probe the extent to which my visceral reactions to Trump today may or may not in fact be just existential contraptions.

On the other hand, folks like Peter K. seem convinced [at least to me] that their own reactions do in fact reflect the optimal or the only rational/virtuous frame of mind.

That's what I no longer have access to. Thus when you speak of my being "consoled" here you haven't a clue as to how all of this really plays out in my head from day to day. But then how on earth could you?

All we can really do here is to grapple with an attempt at communication. Separating those things that we might agree are likely to be true objectively for all of us from those things that are merely the embodiment of enormously complex mental, emotional and psychological components of "I" out in the is/ought world.

Karpel Tunnel wrote: This does not work for me, since I don't care what the objective good or bad might be, I simply wouldn't like that if it happened.

Okay, then you bump into all of those who don't care what the objective good may or may not be, but, instead, they simply would like it to happen.

Then what?

I think it is crucial to probe the extent to which our values here may or may not be the embodiment of dasein. Why? Because, in my view, to the extent that we do, is the extent to which we might steer clear of the objectivist moral and political juggernauts and be more inclined towards moderation, negotiation and compromise -- democracy and the rule of law.

Unlike, say, in the direction that Trump seems to be taking us?

Also, one might take comfort here in the knowledge that in a wholly determined universe, anything and everything is only as it ever could have been. It is what it is. Period. Not that you could ever actually have not taken comfort in it.

Karpel Tunnel wrote: You being you and not me. But yes, that is another way you, Iambiguous, can console yourself. Not that I believe in free will. But you are talking about you here, and certainly not me or the general 'you'.

If you don't believe in free will aren't you saying that this very exchange we are having is unfolding in the only possible way that it ever could have unfolded? "I", "you"... what's the difference if that's true?

Karpel Tunnel wrote: For me my simply not wanting it to is enough to dread that it would happen.

On the other hand, if you were down in my hole, you'd recognize that your not wanting it is no less an existential contraption.Had your life being very, very different you might easily have been predisposed instead to want it. And, not wanting it is not the same thing as demonstrating that all other rational men and women are obligated not to want it either.

Karpel Tunnel wrote: Well, golly gosh. As said, I really do understand this, as I have said before. However, I would not like what you are calling a fascist takeover, my dislike being a existential contraption or not, does not matter, given my experience.

Exactly! Your life unfolded through a particular sequence of experiences and now you are predisposed to dread it. As though [for whatever reason] an entirely different sequence of experiences might not have predisposed you to embrace it instead.

The point then is this: Given the manner in which "I" here is largely the embodiment of an existential contraption, are philosophers able to concoct an argument such that it would direct folks to the most rational understanding of fascism as a governing body?

Instead, you argue:

Karpel Tunnel wrote: I would find it unpleasant, precisely as I said, and contradicting nothing you have said here. Had my life been completely different is irrelevant to my feelings now, having had the life I had. So, I cannot be consoled by this non-existent past of mine. You however can be consoled since you focus on the epistemological issue and yearn for an objectivist position.

Right, and those who wholeheartedly support Trump's agenda can make the same claim. Fuck the past. Fuck all those existential variables that predisposed me to to think and to feel and to behave as I do now. The only important thing as that I do what I can to crush those opposed to his agenda.

But, sure, if this "works" for you then that need be all that matters. I merely point out that...

It is precisely this sort of precarious uncertainty and ambiguity about these things -- about "I" in the is/ought world -- that the objectivists are able to jettison by simply believing that how they view these things reflects who they really are in sync with the way things ought to be.

Karpel Tunnel wrote: Totally irrelevent. I am not an objectivist. However I do have preferences. Nothing you say here contradicts what I wrote.

Okay, but does this mean I should just take that all in and react no further it?

Believe me, I once nestled luxuriously in this frame of mind myself.

Karpel Tunnel wrote: You used to be an objectivist. Now you are a nihilist thinking that it would be comforting to be an objectivist, who seeks to be convinced, if possible, that some form objectivism is true and this can be demonstrated. I am a non-objectivist who has no interest in that.

What difference does it make that here and now you have no interest in it when, in regard to any conflicts you have with others down the road, they have an interest in challenging the manner in which you have come to defend your own value judgments?

What are you going to say to them?

This?

"Look, I just don't like fascism!"

Karpel Tunnel wrote: Could you please read my posts in the future, just try it out, on the assumption that I understand your position. I agree with you on one thread and get a correction where you confirm I agreed with you without realizing it. Here you correct me by saying what I said.

When someone comes after me with that I just reconfigure it into this: "If you read my posts in the manner in which they are meaningful to me you wouldn't respond as though what actually counts is how they are meaningful to you."

On the other hand, I have come to expect this sort of thing in exchanges like this.

He was like a man who wanted to change all; and could not; so burned with his impotence; and had only me, an infinitely small microcosm to convert or detest. John Fowles

iambiguous wrote:IOW if Trump becomes a dictator, you can console yourself with the fact that you really don't know if it is a bad thing or not.

It doesn't work that way of course. There is no way that I can just "click off" all that went into creating the particular political "I" that I have come to embody over many, many years.

Sure, of course. I did not mean some perfect consolation, but that wasn't clear. I meant that you could remind yourself of this, leaving at least an intellectual asterisk - for all I know this isn't a bad thing. Of course, this is not going to completely console you.

On the other hand, folks like Peter K. seem convinced [at least to me] that their own reactions do in fact reflect the optimal or the only rational/virtuous frame of mind.

Perhaps he does, perhaps he would say this. Perhaps on some level he does have a doubt. Another perhaps: if he is right, then perhaps it is good that he is convinced. Going into negotiations with one's intellect undercutting one's own desires can be problematical. And yes, I know that going in relentlessly convinced one is right can be a problem also.

Once one has the position that one does not know the right thing to do, this entails also not judging Peter K. even if he seems not to realize this.

That's what I no longer have access to. Thus when you speak of my being "consoled" here you haven't a clue as to how all of this really plays out in my head from day to day. But then how on earth could you?

Sure. But I was making a point about the distinction. The way you maintain the issue as a lack of access to objective morals, which you would like to have, but right now find no convincing argument, allows some degree of consolation when Trump takes over.

Since I do not yearn for objective morals and respond to things in terms of what I want, I do not have this option of consolation - however ineffective it would be as you accurately point out.

Our ways of reacting to the absence of a convincing argument that set X of morals is objectively corret, entails differences in the way we react to things that happen and other people.

I was being playful in my first response, but covering the ground of a real distinction. Not one that satisfied you goal of getting that perfect objective argument, of course.

Karpel Tunnel wrote: This does not work for me, since I don't care what the objective good or bad might be, I simply wouldn't like that if it happened.

Okay, then you bump into all of those who don't care what the objective good may or may not be, but, instead, they simply would like it to happen.

Then what?

We both bump into them. We both bump into those who believe they know the objective good and we both bump into those who think of this in terms of preferences.

That said, I have explained this elsewhere. I move forward as best I can with the tools I have available, often also at the same time reaction with strong emotions to what I like and don't like, what I can't stop, etc. I have no perfect control of outcomes at all, and so far I seem to be a creature with limited powers.

I think it is crucial to probe the extent to which our values here may or may not be the embodiment of dasein. Why? Because, in my view, to the extent that we do, is the extent to which we might steer clear of the objectivist moral and political juggernauts and be more inclined towards moderation, negotiation and compromise -- democracy and the rule of law.

You can have objective morals and be inclined towards those processes. They can be considered the good. In fact I am quite sure many liberals,consider that attitude Good, and judge others as bad if they are not coming into the political arena or a negotiation with that attitude. They do not share your doubt that this is just another existential contraption, for all they know, but above, here, you make it seem like objective morals and those tactics are mutually exclusive. That is not the case.

Me personally, I would never limit myself to those tools. I will use any tools - note, that is not the same as 'any means' - to get what I want or avoid what I don't. The list of tools I gave your elsewhere.

Unlike, say, in the direction that Trump seems to be taking us?

I don't like Trump at all. But you seem to be ruling out some tools as immoral. Trump, being a big business guy, will use a full range of tools. I am not saying he uses they well, but also allow myself to not always go to the table being moderate and looking for compromise. My insurance company refuses to pay for a medical procedure. I will not go to a meeting with them necessarily at all looking for compromise. I may go into it slamming them with their own moral code from their website's version of the Mission Statement. I might threaten them,s aying I will go to the papers. I might find some connection I had to someone on the Board to pressure the specific bureaucrat in question to do what I want.

If you start convincing people that the best thing is that we aim for moderation and compromise, let me tell you what will happen. People with less power and more empathetic inclinations will be the ones who listen to you most. People with more power and/or less empathy will listen to you less.

Guess what happens when people with less power and more empathy decide that they should be more moderate and more compromise focused and meet the other group who have not listened to you?

Do you want your arguments to have that effect?Or do you think that magically your argument will make everyone more moderate and compromise-aimed?

Your way of potraying THE tool to be used, functions very similarly to considering that tool the only objectively good way of interacting with others.

When dealing with powerful organizations, for example, though not limited to them, I will certainly use not only the three tools you always mention - right makes might, for example - and then others I have mentioned elsewhere.

Also, one might take comfort here in the knowledge that in a wholly determined universe, anything and everything is only as it ever could have been. It is what it is. Period. Not that you could ever actually have not taken comfort in it.

Karpel Tunnel wrote: You being you and not me. But yes, that is another way you, Iambiguous, can console yourself. Not that I believe in free will. But you are talking about you here, and certainly not me or the general 'you'.

If you don't believe in free will aren't you saying that this very exchange we are having is unfolding in the only possible way that it ever could have unfolded? "I", "you"... what's the difference if that's true?

I don't believe in free will and I don't believe in determinism. I don't know. I see problems with believing in both and thinking one is correct. I black box it. That's different.

It amazes me how little even people with dasein noting philosophies like your do not remain agnostic about such things. But in any case, I am agnostic. I see no advantage to trying to convince myself either one must be true. I still face the same day and issues getting up from bed in the morning. Neither one makes my life easier or gives me new tools.

Its an example of how the good willed proposals of meaning have been not properly understood, by a bunch of mobbish intellectuals vested in their own limited interpretations, unaware of their values having been exceeded by the folks like Wittgenstein and the Vienna Circle.

Other monstrous misunderstandings in the cases of Nietzche etc. al.

Last edited by Meno_ on Tue Jul 03, 2018 5:17 pm, edited 1 time in total.

Fixed Cross wrote:Fascism is also leftist by the way. Mob rule.I'd say today's left is far more fascist than Communist , given that working class interests are scorned by the left, and the proletariat voted for Trump.

Now, the working class has become the great demon of the left...

Marx... whaaaat a character. ...

But what IF the mob consists of the neuveau riche of the international oligarchy? Literally?

The left itself is composed of Mark Zuckerberg and such vaguely humanoid billionaires along with anyone who believes what they tell them. It is not Trumps billion that is hated by the left, but his stark, heroic and compassionate humanity; all this is what makes the leftist angry.

I dont know why the reduction of suffering in the Middle East, for example, is so unpalatable to the left, but it has made me lose all remaining faith in anyone on the left. The monstrous cruelty of them all, just completely inhuman.

Fixed Cross wrote:Anyone who does good is a thorn in the eye of the leftist.

The left itself is composed of Mark Zuckerberg and such vaguely humanoid billionaires along with anyone who believes what they tell them.

These two statements don't go well together and further you seem to have conceded the point about the proletariat. No mention of how the right has viewed and used the proletariat. And the left is hardly in love with Zuckerberg as a whole. And I don't see the right disliking him much. Only the conspiracy theorist end of the right is critical of him. And note: I do not use conspiracy theorist as a pejorative term, I would be classed as one myself. But it is disingenuous to class him as simply loved by the Left. He is a corporate billionaire. And I won't accuse you of anti-semitism for attacking him.

And then this idea that anyone who does good is hated by the left. As if there was no arguments about what is good.

It is not Trumps billion that is hated by the left, but his stark, heroic and compassionate humanity; all this is what makes the leftist angry.

Yeah, it's his kindness. There are no disagreements about his policies or how he interacts with people. The Left sees kindness and they hate it. I personally see most of the Left and Right as fucked, but you are just saying random shit.

I dont know why the reduction of suffering in the Middle East, for example, is so unpalatable to the left, but it has made me lose all remaining faith in anyone on the left. The monstrous cruelty of them all, just completely inhuman.

Have you seriously not noted that most of the right has hated Trump all the way along?

Fixed Cross wrote:Fascism is also leftist by the way. Mob rule.I'd say today's left is far more fascist than Communist , given that working class interests are scorned by the left, and the proletariat voted for Trump.

Now, the working class has become the great demon of the left...

Marx... whaaaat a character. ...

K: learn a little history... Fascism is a right wing ideology.... Hitler hatedcommunists and communism and sent to concentration camps "leftist" and "communist"....

as far as the "far left being more "fascist" then Communist, I don't supposeyou could give us an example of this, especally since you don't seemto have any understanding at all, what fascism is...

Kropotkin

"Those who sacrifice liberty for securitywind up with neither." "Ben Franklin"

Karpel Tunnel wrote:IOW if Trump becomes a dictator, you can console yourself with the fact that you really don't know if it is a bad thing or not.

It doesn't work that way of course. There is no way that I can just "click off" all that went into creating the particular political "I" that I have come to embody over many, many years.

Karpel Tunnel wrote:Sure, of course. I did not mean some perfect consolation, but that wasn't clear. I meant that you could remind yourself of this, leaving at least an intellectual asterisk - for all I know this isn't a bad thing. Of course, this is not going to completely console you.

The more you come to grasp human interaction [in the is/ought world] as "I" do, the more your reaction to such things as Trump's policies becomes entangled in both the head and the heart. In other words, however much you try to disentangle it, you're still drawn and quartered "in the moment". Also, I have no way in which to determine if my own frame of mind here and now is in fact a reasonable perspective. Let alone the most reasonable.

On the other hand, folks like Peter K. seem convinced [at least to me] that their own reactions do in fact reflect the optimal or the only rational/virtuous frame of mind.

Karpel Tunnel wrote:Perhaps he does, perhaps he would say this. Perhaps on some level he does have a doubt. Another perhaps: if he is right, then perhaps it is good that he is convinced. Going into negotiations with one's intellect undercutting one's own desires can be problematical. And yes, I know that going in relentlessly convinced one is right can be a problem also.

Once one has the position that one does not know the right thing to do, this entails also not judging Peter K. even if he seems not to realize this.

All I know is that if you are able to convince yourself that the "real me" is in sync with "the right thing to do", this can console and comfort you. I don't know how this "works" for Peter here and now. I only know how it once worked for me there and then.

And judging Peter is the last thing I would do. I am only curious to explore how his own particular "I" reacts to conflicting goods in such a way that he is not down in the hole that "I" am in.

That's what I no longer have access to. Thus when you speak of my being "consoled" here you haven't a clue as to how all of this really plays out in my head from day to day. But then how on earth could you?

Karpel Tunnel wrote:Sure. But I was making a point about the distinction. The way you maintain the issue as a lack of access to objective morals, which you would like to have, but right now find no convincing argument, allows some degree of consolation when Trump takes over.

Here things always get particularly tricky. It is one thing to discuss/debate objective morality [re fascism] in the philosophy forum. After all, it is easier here to yank the exchange up into the realm of "technicalites": definitions and deductions. One set of words dealing with the consequences of defining another set of words in a particular [conflicting] way.

But over in the SGE forum, the discussions often revolve more around the actual existential consequences of, say, separating children from parents in executing a particular immigration policy from the Oval Office. Here the subjunctive frame of mind kicks into gear and you can find yourself dealing with what can become very powerful emotional and psychological reactions. Then it becomes the extent to which the objectivist "intellectual" can "fit" them into one or another moral and political dogma.

Karpel Tunnel wrote:Since I do not yearn for objective morals and respond to things in terms of what I want, I do not have this option of consolation - however ineffective it would be as you accurately point out.

Perhaps, but to the extent that you can live with your "self" without enduring "the agony of choice in the face of uncertainty" can, for some, be consolation enough.

Karpel Tunnel wrote: This does not work for me, since I don't care what the objective good or bad might be, I simply wouldn't like that if it happened.

Okay, then you bump into all of those who don't care what the objective good may or may not be, but, instead, they simply would like it to happen.

Then what?

Karpel Tunnel wrote: We both bump into them. We both bump into those who believe they know the objective good and we both bump into those who think of this in terms of preferences.

Okay, again, if this "works" for you [for all practical purposes] who am I to suggests that it ought not to work for you?

I can only note that it does not work for "me" out in the world of conflicting goods. Here and now. And yet other very, very intelligent men and women are able to arrive at the conclusion that one or another rendition of humanism enables what they construe to be rational men and women to embrace one or another moral/political agenda. Concluding that, among other things, fascism is immoral.

I think it is crucial to probe the extent to which our values here may or may not be the embodiment of dasein. Why? Because, in my view, to the extent that we do, is the extent to which we might steer clear of the objectivist moral and political juggernauts and be more inclined towards moderation, negotiation and compromise -- democracy and the rule of law.

Karpel Tunnel wrote:You can have objective morals and be inclined towards those processes. They can be considered the good.

That's certainly true. You are convinced that right makes might is a viable philosophy, but you are willing to concede that democracy and the rule of law is preferable either to the brute facticity embedded in might makes right or to a political juggernaut like the Nazis who gain power [democratically or not] and then use the political power of the state to dismantle democracy and the rule of law.

Out in the "real world" [historically] these transitions are always going to be enormously complex and convoluted.

Karpel Tunnel wrote:Me personally, I would never limit myself to those tools. I will use any tools - note, that is not the same as 'any means' - to get what I want or avoid what I don't. The list of tools I gave your elsewhere.

On the other hand, there are others who are not in the least reluctant to employ "any means". Why? Because for them the "kingdom of ends" revolves entirely around self-gratification. They range from the nihilists who own and operate the global economy [where "policy" revolves around wealth and power] to the individual sociopaths who channel a No God world into "what's in it for me?"

Karpel Tunnel wrote:If you start convincing people that the best thing is that we aim for moderation and compromise, let me tell you what will happen. People with less power and more empathetic inclinations will be the ones who listen to you most. People with more power and/or less empathy will listen to you less.

Yeah, the "real world". Which is why folks like Marx and Engels and Smith along with Freud and Jung and Reich are still so vital in understanding why mere mortals interact as they do. It all gets entangled in the profoundly problematic evolution of genes and memes in a world veritably seething in contingency, chance and change.

I don't see a way around that. On the other hand, has anyone here actually found one?

If you don't believe in free will aren't you saying that this very exchange we are having is unfolding in the only possible way that it ever could have unfolded? "I", "you"... what's the difference if that's true?

Karpel Tunnel wrote:I don't believe in free will and I don't believe in determinism. I don't know. I see problems with believing in both and thinking one is correct. I black box it. That's different.

Which [from my frame of mind] is really just a way of saying that you know that you don't know how to resolve or reconcile this definitively but you act as though you do know.

Back again to what "I" think "I' know about human autonomy and all that "I" would need to be know about the ontological nature of existence itself in order to know this.

We don't really even have a clue as to where to insert the "human condition" itself into, say, the multiverse?

Karpel Tunnel wrote:It amazes me how little even people with dasein noting philosophies like your do not remain agnostic about such things. But in any case, I am agnostic. I see no advantage to trying to convince myself either one must be true. I still face the same day and issues getting up from bed in the morning. Neither one makes my life easier or gives me new tools.

Please cite a mention by me that indicates I am not an agnostic in regards to questions this big.

"You" [to "me"] just seem to be less fractured and fragmented than "I" am [re fascism] out in the is/ought world. I'll either come to understand why or I won't.

He was like a man who wanted to change all; and could not; so burned with his impotence; and had only me, an infinitely small microcosm to convert or detest. John Fowles

Fixed Cross wrote:Did logic ever play a role in leftist politics, or is leftist politics quite simply that which must escape logic to survive?

Or:

"Did logic ever play a role in rightist politics, or is rightist politics quite simply that which must escape logic to survive? "

Now all we need do is to focus in on an actual issue that leftists and rightists are at odds regarding and note the extent to which logic does in fact play a role in determining which policies all rational and virtuous men and women are obligated to embody in the behaviors that they choose.

You pick one.

He was like a man who wanted to change all; and could not; so burned with his impotence; and had only me, an infinitely small microcosm to convert or detest. John Fowles

Fixed Cross wrote:Fascism is also leftist by the way. Mob rule.I'd say today's left is far more fascist than Communist , given that working class interests are scorned by the left, and the proletariat voted for Trump.

Now, the working class has become the great demon of the left...

Marx... whaaaat a character. ...

K: learn a little history... Fascism is a right wing ideology.... Hitler hatedcommunists and communism and sent to concentration camps "leftist" and "communist"....

as far as the "far left being more "fascist" then Communist, I don't supposeyou could give us an example of this, especally since you don't seemto have any understanding at all, what fascism is...

iambiguous wrote:Perhaps, but to the extent that you can live with your "self" without enduring "the agony of choice in the face of uncertainty" can, for some, be consolation enough.

I can certainly feel uncertain about the choices made and choices I need to make. It just doesn't involve objective morals. I am not omnicient, life is complicated, mistakes can have disastrous results.

Okay, again, if this "works" for you [for all practical purposes] who am I to suggests that it ought not to work for you?

Again, this 'works'

I can only note that it does not work for "me" out in the world of conflicting goods.

1) define 'works' 2) does whatever you do 'work' 3) do you have any reason to believe what you are trying to find 'works' and 'exists'

Let's take this one small step at a time. Define works. And we can move from there.

To me adding in the struggle to find objective morals, and trying to resolve the world's conflicting goods to the burdens I already have would work less well and include some kind of confused hubris about my powers, let alone the liklihood of achieving that. So I experience my NOT doing that as working better than if I did.

iambiguous wrote:Perhaps, but to the extent that you can live with your "self" without enduring "the agony of choice in the face of uncertainty" can, for some, be consolation enough.

I can certainly feel uncertain about the choices made and choices I need to make. It just doesn't involve objective morals. I am not omnicient, life is complicated, mistakes can have disastrous results.

Then back again to the extent to which your own "I" here is construed by you to be [more or less] an existential contraption.

With someone like Mr. Reasonable, for example, I attempt to make this distinction by differentiating the choices he makes when buying and selling stocks, as opposed to the choice he made to pursue this behavior in the face of arguments by others that capitalism is either inherently immoral or, historically, will "dialectically and materially" give way to socialism culminating in Communism. A so-called "scientific" assessment of political economy down through the ages.

In other words, there are choices that we make in which we are able to calculate if they were in fact mistakes. Or certainly if they led to disaster.

But how do we determine if in fact morally we ought to have chosen other behaviors instead?

How is that not profoundly [problematically] embedded in dasein, conflicting goods and political economy?

I can only note that it does not work for "me" out in the world of conflicting goods.

Karpel Tunnel wrote:1) define 'works' 2) does whatever you do 'work' 3) do you have any reason to believe what you are trying to find 'works' and 'exists'

Well, you want to pursue some objective. To, for example, make a lot of money. So you choose to play the stock market. That either works for you in attaining your goal or it doesn't.

Someone on the radical left confronts you one day and tries to convince you that capitalism itself is wrong. It exploits and dehumanizes people. It must be overthrown.

Does her argument work on you? Well, here too it either does or it doesn't. But suppose we take the argument to the philosophers, the ethicists, the political scientists. Suppose we ask them to use the tools at their disposal in order to determine if it ought to work on all reasonable and virtuous men and women.

What then?

And defining a word is one thing, noting how the meaning that you give to a word can be employed out in the world of actual human interactions, another thing altogether. Or so it seems to me. What is its use value, its exchange value when confronting conflicting goods?

The same for all of the other moral and political conflagrations that cleave some be bringing them together or cleave others by tearing them apart.

From my frame of mind, this has less to do with hubris and more to do with recognizing the limitations of philosophy out in the is/ought world. One in which it is assumed that there is no God.

This thread merely focuses in on those limitations with respect to the discussion/debate revolving around fascism as a governing body. It can work for some in the sense that it accomplishes what they construe to be the right thing to do. Either/or.

But what of question, "is fascism a rational, virtuous or even noble pursuit?"

And how existentially does any particular individual come to one rather than another assessment of this?

What if we do live in a world in which mere mortals are basically daseins ever clamoring down through the ages over conflicting goods?

Would that disturb some? Would it take big chunks out of their own comfort and consolation?

And, if so, how would they react to someone like me?

Worse, what if they actually came to think just like me about these things...these relationships?

Trust me: It really, really, really sucks. An essentially meaningless world on this side of the grave, and oblivion on the other side of it.

Of course many react to me as they do! I only wish that I could be one of them.

He was like a man who wanted to change all; and could not; so burned with his impotence; and had only me, an infinitely small microcosm to convert or detest. John Fowles

iambiguous wrote:In other words, there are choices that we make in which we are able to calculate if they were in fact mistakes. Or certainly if they led to disaster.

But how do we determine if in fact morally we ought to have chosen other behaviors instead?

I believe I said a couple of times that I understand the Is/ought distinction and also asked you not to keep explaining it to me.

I can only note that it does not work for "me" out in the world of conflicting goods.

Karpel Tunnel wrote:1) define 'works' 2) does whatever you do 'work' 3) do you have any reason to believe what you are trying to find 'works' and 'exists'

Notice above how I asked for a definition of works and then asked two yes/no questions. You did define works in relation to is type issues. I don't see answers to the other two questions.

And your answer to question 1 does not help me understand what you mean when you assess me by sayingit works for you.

You manage to sum up my approach/life, with this clear statement, but cannot seem to define it or answer it in relation to you. Or question 3.

Your practical example of what it means to 'work' for me or you, doesn't fit the generalized way you assess whether it is working for someone.

Let's stay on this. I don't need to know, again, that you believed X when you were younger. I don't need to know is/ought distinctions or what would happen if objectivists suddenly understood you.

1) What do you mean when you sum up my approach/life by saying 'it works for you'?2) Does what you are doing work for you?3) Do you have any reason to believe that what you are trying to find will 'work'?